ABSTRACT We provide evidence that regulatory guidance aimed at improving audit efficiency and effectiveness—allowing auditor reliance on a multi‐location client's competent and objective internal audit function (IAF)—can unintentionally increase auditors' litigation risk. Our research is important in demonstrating how client characteristics and juror cognitive processing, such as the number of client locations and jurors' susceptibility to the numerosity heuristic, factors beyond auditors' control, can exacerbate their litigation exposure. Consistent with theoretical predictions, we find that susceptibility to the numerosity heuristic contributes to jurors assessing an increased likelihood of misstatement on multi‐location compared to single‐location audits. Furthermore, these assessments of higher misstatement risk on multi‐location audits lead jurors to perceive that auditor reliance on the client's IAF in multi‐location audits is less appropriate (i.e., not normal). Accordingly, jurors judge that auditors are more negligent when they rely on the IAF during multi‐location audits than when they do not, but IAF reliance does not impact auditor negligence on single‐location audits. Our results suggest auditor reluctance to use a qualified IAF, despite client pressure and regulatory allowance, can provide potential benefits to firms in terms of reduced litigation exposure. Thus, we demonstrate the legal regime can undermine the objectives of regulators' guidance to enhance audit efficiency and corporate governance.

ABSTRACT This study examines corporate integrity culture—that is, a firm's shared values and behaviors related to compliance, trustworthiness, and ethics. Different from prior research that associates culture measures with general firm‐level outcomes, we evaluate the pervasiveness of the integrity culture within an organization across two disparate business functions: operations and financial reporting. We first develop a measure of corporate integrity culture based on firms' internal control environments and show that, as predicted, weak integrity culture contributes to both operational and financial non‐compliance. We next document the predicted positive contemporaneous association between operational and financial non‐compliance, controlling for the integrity culture reflected in the internal control environment. Given the organizational and physical distances and lack of day‐to‐day interactions between the two business functions, we infer that management's “tone at the top” likely affects non‐compliance in both functions. Finally, for firms with existing operational non‐compliance, we find more negative market reactions to accounting restatements and higher CEO turnover propensities following restatements. These results indicate that top management must consistently reinforce a culture of compliance and integrity, lest it decay throughout the organization. Our results also imply that regulators evaluating compliance in specific functions could benefit from reviewing compliance in other functions within the firm.

ABSTRACT Many companies regularly disclose non‐GAAP performance measures to communicate firm‐specific information that does not fit within the mold of GAAP reporting. However, these non‐GAAP measures may have low information content or even be misleading to investors. Thus, the question arises of whether auditors should play a larger role in the reporting of non‐GAAP measures, which currently are not audited. We run an experiment to provide ex ante evidence on the effect of auditing non‐GAAP measures. Specifically, we present investor‐participants with a non‐GAAP measure that should be used when making investment judgments (more informative) or should not be used when making investment judgments (less informative) and is either audited or is not audited. As predicted, we find that, when participants view a non‐GAAP measure that is more informative, they appropriately use the non‐GAAP measure in their investment‐related judgments, regardless of whether the measure is audited. However, also as predicted, we find that, while participants appropriately do not use a less informative non‐GAAP measure when it is not audited, participants inappropriately do use the less informative non‐GAAP measure in their investment‐related judgments when it is audited. Mediation results provide evidence consistent with audits affecting investors' reliance on non‐GAAP measures. Specifically, our results are consistent with audits of non‐GAAP measures signaling more than is intended, evidenced by investors perceiving an audited non‐GAAP measure as being useful in their investment decisions when the measure is less informative to them. Our findings suggest that regulators should exercise caution when it comes to prescribing assurance over non‐GAAP measures.

ABSTRACT In this study, we provide theoretical guidance for both analytical research and empirical research by considering how changing expectations of earnings affect a dishonest manager's strategy to overstate earnings and an auditor's strategy to exert effort in a two‐period setting. We expect our study's insights on changing economic conditions to help shape future research. We model the manager type as either honest or dishonest, which allows us to differentiate audit risk from audit effort. The key takeaways for future research are the insights on how changes in payoffs and expected earnings affect the associations that involve earnings overstatements and audit effort with audit risk and market price. For instance, researchers typically assume audit effort and audit risk are negatively associated, but we find the association can be positive when, for example, the auditor chooses a period 2 strategy based on the changes in period 1 game parameters. The results of our study provide two additional key insights on the design of future empirical tests. First, by dichotomizing, we show the importance of estimating the intercept in the market pricing equation when studying earnings quality, because market price also adjusts for expected bias through changes in the intercept. Second, our multiperiod setting demonstrates that the effects from a change in the manager's or auditor's incentives in period 1 may reverse in period 2. Empirical studies typically examine the contemporaneous effects of these changes on market price and/or audit risk but fail to identify the cross‐temporal effects we document in our study.

ABSTRACT We examine the effects of corporate networks involving common directors and auditors (i.e., connections creating single or double ties between companies) on two important monitoring roles: financial reporting quality and auditor dismissal decisions. We also investigate how shocks to the networks, in the form of the audit failing to detect misstatements, affect these networks' structure. The investigations are important because these networks can have significant effects on firm governance and may have different effects when they overlap. We have three primary findings about double‐tie networks: (i) there is no evidence that they improve overall financial reporting quality beyond the effect of single‐tie networks; (ii) they lower directors' willingness to dismiss the auditor, even when there is a signal of an audit failure within the network; and (iii) they allow audit‐quality problems to spread between companies. Our results demonstrate the importance of investigating multiple types of networks and how shocks travel through them. Our findings also lend credence to concerns that “cozy” relationships between directors and auditors diminish the link between poor audit quality and market‐imposed reputation penalties—specifically, auditor dismissals.